Category filters

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely useful behavior: which filter types exist, that 'lazy' filters have long option lists needing a different tool, and that rent vs. sale categories filter different fields (credit/rent vs. price), all in Toman. It stops short of stating pagination or response-shape details, but it goes meaningfully beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose and the usage cue are front-loaded in the first two sentences, and the rest is dense but load-bearing type examples. It is a single run-on block with no visual grouping, which slightly hurts scanability, but there is no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description correctly explains what is returned and adds domain rules (rent vs. sale filter fields, Toman units) plus pointers to dv_filter_options for long lists. It is complete enough to call the tool correctly, though it leaves the relationship between the schema's city/category params and the referenced `filters` payload implicit.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% for the two declared parameters (city, category), so the baseline would be 3. The description earns an extra point by supplying value-encoding semantics for the filter payload (number_range -> {min,max}, repeated_string -> list, str -> scalar, boolean -> true) that the schema does not document at all.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description specifies the resource precisely: it enumerates every filter a category supports along with the returned fields (key, type, Persian label, unit, options). It also names the sibling dv_filter_options and the alternative path via dv_search, so an agent can distinguish it from the rest of the dv_* family without inspecting schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It states the trigger condition explicitly ('Use before dv_search when you need more than price and district') and routes the agent to alternatives for the lazy/long-list filters. The when-to-use and the escape hatch are both spelled out rather than left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.